BAKHSHISH SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB
Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN,S.A. BOBDE
Case number: Crl.A. No.-001110-001110 / 2009
Diary number: 32459 / 2008
Advocates: NIRAJ GUPTA Vs
KULDIP SINGH
Page 1
Page 1 of 34
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1110 OF 2009
Bakhshish Singh …. Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab & Anr. …. Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1112 OF 2009
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1111 OF 2009
JUDGMENT
S. A. BOBDE, J.
1. By this common judgment, we propose to dispose of
these appeals as they arise out of the same incident
and involve common questions of law and facts.
2. These appeals are directed against the judgment and
order dated 17.07.2008 passed by the High Court of
Page 2
Punjab and Haryana at -Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal
No. 334-DB of 2007 whereby the High Court affirmed
conviction of the appellants as held by the Addl.
Sessions Judge, Rupnagar, Punjab by convicting and
sentencing accused – Bakhshish Singh - appellant in
Appeal No. 1110 of 2009, Satbir Singh - appellant in
Appeal No. 1111 of 2009 and Rachhpal Singh -
appellant in Appeal No. 1112 of 2009 for imprisonment
life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
[for short ‘IPC’] and fine in F.I.R. No. 271 dated June
21, 2003.
3. The charge was that Bakhshish Singh conspired with
Satbir Singh and Rachhpal Singh to murder Gurcharan
Singh. Bakhshish Singh was found guilty by the Addl.
Sessions Judge, Rupnagar and sentenced to
imprisonment for life for offences punishable under
Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the IPC. A fine
of Rs. 5,000/- was also imposed upon him. In default
of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo further
rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.
Other appellants Satbir Singh and Rachhpal Singh were
found guilty for offences punishable under Section 302
Page 3
Page 3 of 34
and Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the IPC.
Under Section 302 of the IPC, they were sentenced to
imprisonment for life. A fine of Rs. 1,000/- each was
also imposed upon them and in default of payment of
fine; they were further directed to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one month. Under
Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the IPC they
were sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of
Rs. 1,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they
were further directed to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one month. However, it
was made clear that all sentences shall run
concurrently.
4. According to the prosecution, on June 21, 2003 at
about 5.30 am, Gurcharan Singh went to the park
adjoining his house for a morning walk. Soon
thereafter his wife – Kulwinder Kaur, PW 1, joined him.
She was 20/25 steps behind her husband. When
Gurcharan Singh reached near the main gate of the
park, two tall young men attacked Gurcharan Singh
with daggers. They inflicted injuries on his chest and
neck. He cried for help. His wife - Kulwinder Kaur also
Page 4
cried for help. The two men stabbed Gurcharan Singh
barbarically and fled the scene. The said assailants are
appellants - Satbir Singh and Rachhpal Singh.
5. Hardev Singh, PW-2, a neighbourer of Gurcharan Singh
heard the cry of Kulwinder Kaur, PW 1, and reached the
spot and arranged a vehicle and removed Gurcharan
Singh to the Fortis Hospital at Mohali. The doctors who
examined him at the hospital declared him dead.
6. At the Fortis Hospital, Gurcharan Singh was attended
by PW-7 - Dr. Kamaljit Chachal and PW-8 - Dr. Sanjay
Ahulwalia. They noticed multiple stab injuries on the
dead body of Gurcharan Singh. They -confirmed his
death as having been occurred at 6.00 am on June 21,
2003. The cause of death was given as multiple stab
injuries.
7. On receipt of intimation, sub-inspector Ramandeep
Singh (P.W. 21) reached the Fortis Hospital and
recorded statement of Kulwinder Kaur (PW 1). He
made his endorsement over it and sent it to the Police
Station, Mohali. The complainant, Kulwinder Kaur, PW
1, apart from reporting the incident to sub-inspector
Page 5
Page 5 of 34
Ramandeep Singh (P.W. 21) asserted that she could
identify the assailants on seeing them. Sub-inspector
Ramandeep Singh (P.W. 21) recorded statements of the
witnesses and sent the dead body of Gurcharan Singh
to the Civil Hospital, Mohali, for post mortem
examination.
8. Thereafter, sub-inspector Ramandeep Singh (P.W. 21)
accompanied by Kulwinder Kaur, PW 1, went to the
place of occurrence and inspected the spot. He
collected blood-stained earth from there and took into
his possession two buttons lying nearby. He also took
into his possession blood-stained dagger (Exhibit P.2)
from the hedge of the park and some leaves from the
nearby hedge which were blood-stained. Alongside the
hedge, there was a barbed wire and a piece of cloth
was found entangled therein. That piece of cloth
appeared to be a part of the pocket of a shirt of a man.
It was blood stained and was taken into possession.
Since Kulwinder Kaur, PW 1, expressed her suspicion
regarding the involvement of the Bakhshish -Singh,
sub-inspector Ramandeep Singh (P.W. 21), raided his
house. It was found, that he was away to Pakistan.
Page 6
9. The post mortem examination revealed as many as 17
wounds on the chest and neck of the deceased
Gurcharan Singh. Dr. Navneet Kaur (PW 8) conducted
post mortem examination on the dead body of
Gurcharan Singh at Civil Hospital, Mohali. Later, the
Doctor at the request of the police gave her opinion
that the injuries were inflicted by a sharp edged
weapon.
10. On June 22, 2003, sub-Inspector Ramandeep
Singh (PW 21) sent a notice under Section 160 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure [hereinafter referred to as
‘the Code”] to Bakhshish Singh. The said notice was
served upon Bakhshish Singh at the Wagha Border,
immediately on his entering India from Pakistan. Sub-
inspector Ramandeep Singh made inquiries from him
and asked him to meet on the next day. However, he
did not turn up.
11. Since there was no clue regarding the assailants,
a notice was published in the newspaper of the area on
June 22, 2003 calling upon public in general to disclose
if they had any clue about the incident. Upon reading
Page 7
Page 7 of 34
the said notice, Narinder Banwait (PW 19) met sub-
inspector Ramandeep Singh (P.W. 21) on June 23,
2003. He disclosed that on the material day, when he
came near the hedge of the park in -question, he saw
two young men running towards Phase XI, Mohali in
suspicious circumstances. One of them had a cut mark
on his arm; both of them had blood stains on their
clothes; one of them was having a blood stained
dagger type knife in his hand; both of them jumped
the hedge of the park and went away on a Bajaj
Chetak Scooter bearing registration No. CH-01-D-4465,
which was parked near the road outside the park. The
police eventually found that said scooter was registered
in the name of one Rakesh Kumar (PW -5), who stated
that he had sold the same to accused/appellant Satbir
Singh through Sirikant Bhandari (PW -3), who was
doing the business of sale-purchase of vehicles. The
sale of scooter to Satbir Singh was made against the
payment receipt (Exhibit P.W. 4/B) and delivery receipt
(Exhibit P.W. 4/C), which carried signatures of Satbir
Singh.
Page 8
12. According to the prosecution on July 03, 2003 a
call was received by Deputy Superintendent of Police –
Daljit Singh (PW 20) from Amar Singh (PW 13), to the
effect that appellants Satbir Singh and Rachhpal Singh
were present at his house with him and that they had
on June 21, 2003 murdered Gurcharan Singh at the
instance of Bakhshish Singh and that he had requested
them to surrender before the police as the police was
looking for them. These two appellants were formally
arrested by sub-inspector Ramandeep Singh (P.W. 21)
on July 03, 2003.
13. Appellant/accused - Bakhshish Singh was also
arrested on July 03, 2003, from the Bus Stand at Ropar
after sub-inspector Ramandeep Singh received
information that he was there.
14. On July 04, 2003, sub-inspector Ramandeep
Singh (P.W. 21) produced all the accused before the
Ilaqa Magistrate. Satbir Singh and Rachhpal Singh
applied before the Ilaqa Magistrate that they are not
willing to their identification parade. Hence the Ilaka
Page 9
Page 9 of 34
Magistrate did not hold their identification parade and
passed the order dated July 04, 2003 in this regard.
15. On July 05, 2003, Rachhpal Singh made a
disclosure statement to the effect that he had
concealed blood-stained dagger used by him in the
crime and his blood-stained clothes near the under-
construction Railway Bridge in the area of Village
Chilla. In consequence of disclosure statement, the
police party led to said Railway Bridge and recovered a
blood-stained dagger (Exhibit P.W. 19/D) and a blood-
stained shirt (Exhibit P.W. 19/G) and trouser (Exhibit
P.W. 19/F) from the disclosed place. These articles
were found wrapped in a polythene bag and kept
beneath the earth. These articles were taken into
possession vide seizure memo (Exhibit P.W. 19/E),
attested by Narinder Banwait (PW 19) and Assistant
sub-Inspector Iqbal Singh.
16. Accused - Satbir Singh also made a disclosure
statement, as a consequence of which, a Bajaj Chetak
scooter bearing registration No. CH-01-D-4465 and a
blood-stained shirt (Exhibit P.W. 19/L), which was lying
Page 10
in the bushes near the drain beside the road that
connects Papri and Manauli were recovered. His driving
licence and visiting cards from the boot of the scooter
were also recovered. These articles along with scooter
were taken into possession vide seizure memo Exhibit
P.W. 19/H.
17. The blood-stained earth and dagger recovered
from the place of occurrence were sent to the Forensic
Science Laboratory. Upon perusing the report of the
Forensic Science Laboratory it was found that the
dagger and the earth were stained with human blood.
The dagger and the clothes recovered at the instance
of Rachhpal Singh were also found to be blood-stained
with human blood, vide report Exhibit P.A/4.
18. At the trial, the prosecution examined as many as
21 witnesses. After completion of the prosecution
evidence, statements of the accused were recorded
under Section 313 of the Code. Appellants/accused
pleaded their innocence.
19. The case of Satbir Singh and Rachhpal Singh,
who had assailed Gurcharan Singh, can be taken up
Page 11
Page 11 of 34
separately from that of accused Bakhshish Singh, who
is said to be the mastermind of the crime. Satbir
Singh is a nephew of Bakhshish Singh. Rachhpal Singh
is an accomplice of Satbir Singh having no apparent
connection with Bakhshish Singh. The Trial Court and
High Court have rendered a clear finding that these
two killed Gurcharan Singh in the park. The courts
below have rendered a finding on the basis of recovery
and on the evidence of Kulwinder Kaur, PW 1, who was
an eye witness. Kulwinder Kaur, PW 1, in her
deposition has stated that when she was walking about
20/25 steps behind her husband, two boys “clean
shaven with trimmed beard” came from the main gate
and assaulted her husband with a dagger. They were
about 26/27 years old. She raised an alarm “Bachao-
Bachao”. The said two boys jumped over the hedge
and ran away. In court, she stated that the said two
boys are present in court and she can identify them as
they are the same persons who stabbed her husband.
She stated that motive may be the result of a
conspiracy entered by Bakhshish Singh along with his
wife – Hardev Kaur to get the Chairman Ship of the
Page 12
“Khandi Friends Educational Trust” of which
Gurcharan Singh was the Chairman.
20. We may now turn to the statements of the sole
eye-witness of the assault, Kulwinder Kaur, PW 1, the
wife of the deceased. She has described the incident
with sufficient clarity. She stated that she used to
accompany her husband for the morning walk. On the
material day, she started little later than him but
followed him to the park. Later, when she was about
20/25 steps behind his husband two boys came inside
the park from the main gate and assaulted his
husband. Both the said boys were with trimmed
beard. Her actual description is “clean shaven with a
trimmed beard”. It must be understood to mean as
conveying persons without a full grown beard. She
and her husband raised an alarm “Bachao-Bachao”.
She remembers that the dagger was lying there. She
has unequivocally identified the said boys, who were
present in the court as Satbir Singh and the other as
his friend. As regards her identification of Satbir
Singh, it was argued that she was confused. The
reason behind it might be that when she had identified
Page 13
Page 13 of 34
him in a photograph he was having full grown beard.
According to the learned counsel for the appellants, her
description of Satbir Singh was that he had a trimmed
beard but in the court when he was identified by
Kulwinder Kaur, PW 1; he did not have a trimmed
beard but had a full grown beard. This contention
must be rejected since it would appear quite natural for
a person when he is about to commit a crime to
change his appearance by shaving his beard. Also,
there is nothing improbable for a wife whose husband
is attacked to have carefully noticed the face of the
assailant and thereafter to identify the same person
even if his beard has grown back and also to -identify
that person from photograph. We may mention that
Satbir Singh is said to be employed by the “Institute
of Engineering and Technology, Bhaddal” run by
the trust known as “Khandi Friends Educational
Trust”, whose founder Chairman was Gurcharan Singh
(deceased) and the witness used to see him on several
occasions. We also see no reason to disbelieve her
identification of Rachhpal Singh, who was also seen
from close quarters by her when he assaulted her
husband.
Page 14
21. Narinder Banwait (PW 19), who had informed the
police, after reading the public appeal for clues, stated
in his evidence that he had gone to that park for a
morning walk on 21st June, 2003. When he was
outside the park, he saw two young men running
towards Phase-XI Mohali, in suspicious circumstances.
One of them was 32/33 years and the other was of the
age of 28 years. One of them was having a cut-mark
on his arm. Their clothes were stained with blood.
One of them had a dagger/knife in his hand, which was
also blood stained. They jumped the bushes in his
presence and fled away on a Bajaj Chetak scooter
bearing registration No. CH-01-D-4465, which was
parked near the road. He identified them in the court.
He stated that he read a public notice in the newspaper
issued by S.P. Police requesting the public for any clue
for the murder of Gurcharan Singh and then he
approached the police and got his statement recorded
by the police. He further stated that he signed the
disclosure statement of Satbir Singh and went to the
place of occurrence as disclosed by the accused along
with the police. He also deposed to the disclosure
Page 15
Page 15 of 34
made by Rachhpal Singh and the recovery of one
dagger and blood stained clothes. He identified the
items recovered in the court. He then deposed to the
recovery of Bajaj Chetek Scooter bearing registration
No. CH-01-D-4465 of blue colour. He also deposed
that Satbir Singh led the police party to the disclosed
place and got recovery of a driving licence, the sale
letter regarding the purchase of the scooter and one
visiting card of some Hotel from the dickey of the
scooter along with one blood-stained shirt, which was
torn from the left side. He identified scooter and other
articles also. He, however, stated that both the
accused were saying that “Kanda Kad Ditta Hai of
Chairman and Chacha is not present in India and they
should go to Chachi to take the money”. At this
juncture, we may note one of the submissions made by
Mr. H.S. Phoolka, learned senior counsel, appearing for
Bakhshish Singh – appellant/accused in Criminal
Appeal No. 1110/2009 that in his statement with the
police, this witness has got recorded his name as
Maninder Banwait and later in the court as Narinder
Banwait. This is undoubtedly so, but we do not
consider this discrepancy significant since it does not
Page 16
cast any suspicion on the identity of the witness and
his presence at the spot, particularly in view of his
explanation.
22. Several contradictions occurring in the
depositions of this witness and in his statement to the
police have been referred to by Mr. H.S. Phoolka,
learned senior counsel. It was pointed out that he
stated that he had been taken to the police station,
whereas the investigating officer denied that this
witness was taken to the police station. According to
the learned counsel for the appellants, Narinder
Banwait (PW 19) has stated in his deposition that he
stayed in the police station for 15/20 minutes, after the
occurrence i.e. when he had gone to lodge his report
with the police. Whereas the investigating officer had
stated that on June 23, 2003, Narinder Banwait (PW
19), stayed with him for 1 ½ hours and he did not
produce Narinder Banwait (PW 19) before any of his
senior officers in the police station on that day. It was
submitted that it was a major contradiction. Having
gone through the evidence, we find that the statement
of the said witness is that he had been to the police
Page 17
Page 17 of 34
station once, but due to the lapse of the time, he
cannot remember the date and time. Thereafter, he
stated that on a subsequent visit to the police station
he stayed there for 15/20 minutes. Apart from the fact
that the alleged contradiction is not regarding June 23,
2003 visit but about a subsequent visit, we do not
consider this contradiction significant enough to affect
the credibility of this witness which is otherwise
corroborated. He further submitted that Narinder
Banwait (PW 19) -has falsely stated that these two
accused while running away stated that “Kanda Kad
Ditta Hai of Chairman and Chacha is not present in
India and they should go to Chachi to take the money”.
According to the learned senior counsel this witness is
trying to rope in Bakhshish Singh in a conspiracy, who
is not guilty because he was in Pakistan on the date of
incident. However, on going through the evidence on
record, we do not find that these contradictions have
shaken the credibility of the witness in regard to his
presence on the spot outside the park or that he saw
the accused running away. These facts have been
amply corroborated by the evidence of Kulwinder Kaur,
PW 1 and the recoveries effected by the disclosure
Page 18
made by the said accused. We are also not inclined to
accept the submission that merely because the witness
did not approach the police immediately on the date of
the incident but approached the police after he had
read the public notice; his testimony is liable to be
thrown out. Though it was suggested that this witness
was connected with Gurcharan Singh (deceased) and
Kulwinder Kaur, PW 1, there is no material on record to
demonstrate this statement. No motive can be
attributed to this witness that he approached the police
and gave his deposition due to any relation with the
Gurcharan Singh (deceased) or his wife or the
prosecution.
23. It was urged by Mr. Mahavir Singh, learned senior
counsel appearing for Satbir Singh and Rachhpal Singh
- accused/appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1111 of
2009 and 1112 of 2009 respectively that the Narinder
Banwait (PW 19) is not speaking the truth that the
assailants escaped through the hedge as in his
statement he deposed that the hedge of the park at
some points was 5 ½ feet/6 feet tall and that barbed
wire was also passing through the hedge and that he
Page 19
Page 19 of 34
did not re-call whether barbed wire was there or not at
the place where he was present, whereas PW 19/A –
Gian Chand, Draftsman, in his deposition has stated
that there were three lines of barbed wire which is
shown in the site plan, prepared by him. As such,
Narinder Banwait (PW 19) is not speaking the truth
because the two assailants could not have escaped
through a barbed wire fence. There is no substance in
this contention, in view of the categorical assertion of
PW 19/A – Gian Chand, Draftsman, who has prepared
a site plan, which is brought on record, that the height
of the barbed wire was only three feet. Above the wire
presumably there was only the hedge without any
barbed wire. Moreover, there is no doubt that accused
have escaped through the hedge since blood stained
leaves were found from the hedge and a torn piece of
cloth, presumably, the torn cloth of pocket of the shirt
was found entangled in the barbed wire.
24. It was further urged that the dagger which was
produced in court could not have been used as an
instrument for the crime because the dagger was not
shown to the doctor during post mortem -examination
Page 20
and the doctor has only stated that the injuries could
have been caused through the sharp edged weapon
given in court. We find from the testimony of the
doctor that he deposed that the injuries were caused
by a sharp edged weapon, which is quite consistent
with the use of dagger for the offence.
25. It was further submitted that the prosecution
case is suspicious because there was a delay in sending
clothes and dagger to the Forensic Science Laboratory
and that even otherwise the report of the Forensic
Science Laboratory shows that the dagger contained
human blood but without referring to any blood group.
Upon perusal of the record, we find that submission
that the blood group was not ascertained and therefore
it was not the blood of the deceased, was not made
before the courts below. In any case, this does not
cast any doubt on the prosecution case which has been
proved from the evidence and the findings of the
courts below.
26. It was also urged that there is some overwriting
on the bundle by which the items were deposited in the
Page 21
Page 21 of 34
court and the delay in depositing the items. We have
examined the records carefully. Though there is
something incongruous in it but that is not sufficient to
dislodge the substance of the prosecution case which is
based on evidence properly adduced. There is no
doubt that Gurcharan Singh was assaulted when he
was taking a walk in the park and that Narinder
Banwait, PW 19, saw the two assailants escape from
the park on a scooter. These two were Satbir Singh
and Rachhpal Singh as identified by Kulwinder Kaur.
The dagger and the scooter traced at the instance of
the two accused were used in the crime. The dagger
was stained with human blood. So also the alleged
attempt of the police authorities to induce Rachhpal
Singh to become an approver does not discredit the
prosecution version of an incidence which transpires
confidence before it. In any case, it is not necessary to
consider that aspect any further.
27. It was next urged that the said witness stated
several things before the court which were not stated
under Section 161 of the Code such as (i) “Kanda Kad
Ditta Hai of Chairman and Chacha is not present in
Page 22
India and they should go to Chachi to take the
money”; (ii) The Chairman of the Institute was
Gurcharan Singh; (iii) Bakhshish Singh disclosed that
they had political rivalry with the Chairman, namely,
Gurcharan Singh and it was disclosed by Bakhshish
Singh that Rs. 20,000/- each was paid to Satbir Singh
and Rachhpal Singh for the murder of Chairman,
Gurcharan Singh; (iv) Persons who were seen running
away by Narinder Banwait (PW 19) were running away
in suspicious circumstances; ‘suspicious circumstances’
was not mentioned under 161 statement (v) the said
two persons had passed -and he was just ¾ feet away
from them; ‘distance’ was not mentioned under 161
statement; (vi) on seeing the same I got scared;
‘factum of getting scared’ was not mentioned under
161 statement; (vii) Bakhshish Singh disclosed that
murder was to be executed only when Bakhshish Singh
would be abroad. These undoubtedly seem to be
embellishments by this witness. The question is
whether these embellishments are such as to destroy
core of the prosecution story, which is otherwise found
to have been established. This Court in several cases
observed that minor inconsistent
Page 23
Page 23 of 34
versions/discrepancies do not necessarily demolish the
entire prosecution story, if it is otherwise found to be
creditworthy. In Sampath Kumar v. Inspector of
Police : (2012) 4 SCC 124, this Court after
scrutinizing several earlier judgments relied upon the
observations in Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary v.
State of Maharashtra : (2000) 8 SCC 457 to the
following effect:
“42. Only such omissions which amount to contradiction in material particulars can be used to discredit the testimony of the witness. The omission in the police statement by itself would not necessarily render the testimony of witness unreliable. When the version given by the witness in the court is different in material particulars from that disclosed in his earlier statements, the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful and not otherwise. Minor contradictions are bound to appear in the statements of truthful witnesses as memory sometimes plays false and the sense of observation differ from person to person.”
-
28. In Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) v.
State of Maharashtra : (2010) 13 SCC 657, this
Court observed as follows:
“30. While appreciating the evidence, the court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions/omissions had been of such magnitude that they may materially affect the trial. Minor
Page 24
contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters without effecting the core of the prosecution case should not be made a ground to reject the evidence in its entirety. The trial court, after going through the entire evidence, must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and the appellate court in normal course would not be justified in reviewing the same again without justifiable reasons. (Vide State v. Saravanan) (2008)17SCC 587”
29. The embellishments in the statements of
Narinder Banwait (PW 19) referred to above, in our
view do not constitute such contradictions which
destroy the core of the prosecution case as this Court
in the case of Raj Kumar Singh alias Raju Alias
Batya Vs. State Of Rajasthan : (2013) 5 SCC 722 at
page 740 has observed as under:
“ It is a settled legal proposition that, while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the case of the prosecution, must not prompt the court to reject the evidence thus provided, in its entirety. The irrelevant details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness, cannot be labeled as omissions or contradictions. Therefore, the courts must be cautious and very particular, in their exercise of appreciating evidence. The approach to be adopted is, if the
Page 25
Page 25 of 34
evidence of a witness is read in its entirety, and the same appears to have in it, a ring of truth, then it may become necessary for the court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly, keeping in mind the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the said evidence as a whole, and evaluate them separately, to determine whether the same are completely against the nature of the evidence provided by the witnesses, and whether the validity of such evidence is shaken by virtue of such evaluation, rendering it unworthy of belief.”
30. We are of the view that in spite of alleged
omissions and embellishments the evidence of
Narinder Banwait (PW 19) remains within zone of
credibility.
31. The only other witness, who came close to the
scene of crime, is Hardev Singh, PW 2, who stated that
when he went for walk in the nearby park on the
material day, he heard an alarm that “Mar Ditta Mar
Ditta”. He then went inside the park and saw
Kulwinder Kaur, PW 1, standing there and Gurcharan
Singh lying in an injured condition on the ground. He
stated that Kulwinder Kaur, PW 1, told him that two
persons inflicted knife blows on Gurcharan Singh and
Page 26
fled away. He then stated that he called a neighbour,
who came with his City Honda car and took Gurcharan
Singh to the Fortis Hospital, Mohali. It was next
contended that the prosecution story is obviously false
since Hardev Singh; PW 2 heard the words “Mar Ditta
Mar Ditta” whereas Kulwinder Kaur, PW 1, stated she
had raised the alarm of “Bachao-Bachao”. We do not
consider this discrepancy as significant enough to
discard the veracity of the statements of either
Kulwinder Kaur, PW 1 or Hardev Singh, PW 2, since in
an emergency of this nature witnesses are not
expected to remember the precise words spoken by
them. Often what comes out from witnesses who have
witnessed a brutal murder is gibberish. The testimony
is not liable to be rejected on that ground alone. We
are satisfied that the Trial Court and the High Court
have recorded a correct finding that Satbir Singh and
Rachhpal Singh assaulted Gurcharan Singh with knife,
which caused his death.
32. The question regarding the motive of Satbir
Singh and Rachhpal Singh to murder Gurcharan Singh
has a great significance in this case. There is nothing
Page 27
Page 27 of 34
on record to show that either Satbir Singh or Rachhpal
Singh have personal grudge or were on such inimical
terms with the deceased that they would want to kill
him. There is no robbery involved in the murder. There
appears to be no conflict between these two accused
and the deceased Gurcharan Singh, who was the
Chairman of “Khandi Friends Educational Trust”.
Satbir Singh seems to have been employed as
Construction Supervisor in the said Trust but nothing is
brought on record that he has any conflict with
Gurcharan Singh. Rachhpal Singh does not appear to
have any connection whatsoever with Gurcharan Singh.
From the entire evidence, it is clear that these two had
nothing to gain by eliminating Gurcharan Singh. They
had no conflict with him and they made no attempt to
relieve him of any property. The question is: then why
did they kill him? If there was no personal motive in
the sense of animosity against Gurcharan Singh then
the only motive could have been instigation by another,
who had such a motive. According to the prosecution
the only person who had a motive sufficient to warrant
killing of Gurcharan Singh was the appellant Bakhshish
Singh, who was undoubtedly away to Pakistan on the
Page 28
day of murder June 21, 2003. In fact his being away
on the fateful day is itself creates a doubt about his
complicity in the crime. The thrust of the prosecution
is to prove that in order to eliminate Gurcharan Singh
and to make free the Trust from the control of
Gurcharan Singh; Bakhshish Singh employed his
brother’s son Satbir Singh and his friend Rachhpal
Singh. “Khandi Friends Educational Trust” appears
to have been the bone of contention which runs the
“Institute of Engineering and Technology,
Bhaddal” and it appears that annual turnover of the
said Trust was in the region of about 20 crores.
According to the prosecution, Gurcharan Singh was the
founder Chairman of the said Trust and there were 8
Trustees/Members of the Trust, including Kulwinder
Kaur, PW 1, Bakhshish Singh – accused/appellant and
his wife Hardev Kaur. Bakhshish Singh -
accused/appellant, wanted to become Chairman of the
said trust and often used to give threats to -Kulwinder
Kaur, PW 1 and her husband Gurcharan Singh
(deceased). Guneet Kaur, daughter of Kulwinder Kaur,
PW 1, was also studying in the said institute in the year
2002. An election was held to the post of
Page 29
Page 29 of 34
Chairmanship of the said Trust, in the year 2002, in
which Gurcharan Singh was elected as Chairman
whereas appellant Bakhshish Singh was not elected to
any of the offices of the Trust and therefore he was
annoyed with Gurcharan Singh.
33. We have perused the record of the proceedings of
Election. The election proceedings show that
Bakhshish Singh had objected to the said proceedings
on the ground that it was illegal. We are not inclined
to go into the correctness of his objections. Suffice it
to say that Bakhshish Singh was opposed to Gurcharan
Singh. To get the Chairmanship of the said Trust or in
any case to remove Gurcharan Singh was a sufficiently
strong motive to have the opponent eliminated
particularly when seen in the surrounding
circumstances. Further, it appears that relationship
between Gurcharan Singh (deceased) and Kulwinder
Kaur, PW 1 on one hand and Bakhshish Singh and his
wife - Hardev Kaur on the other hand was completely
hostile. Kulwinder Kaur, PW 1 has stated that
Bakhshish Singh and his wife Hardev Kaur used to give
threats to her and Gurcharan Singh (deceased) in the
Page 30
meetings for the Chairmanship of the said Trust. The
accused Bakhshish Singh and his wife Hardev Kaur had
given threats to rape her daughter, who was studying
in the same institute and that they could achieve it as
their relatives are hardened criminals. They used to
also say that they are “Gurdaspurias” and they could
even murder opponent for getting the Chairmanship of
this Institute. The threats forced Kulwinder Kaur, PW
1, to ask her husband to withdraw their daughter from
the said institute and to migrate her to some other
institute, so that, Bakhshish Singh could not do any
harm to anybody but her husband did not agree. In
cross-examination, Kulwinder Kaur, PW 1, was asked
whether she had told the police that Hardev Kaur had
also given a threat to rape her daughter since she had
apparently used the word ‘rape’, she clarified that she
had clearly stated in the statement given to the police
that Bakhshish Singh had given a threat to rape her
daughter. As regards, her statement that she had
proposed her daughter to migrate to some other
institute and when she was confronted with the
absence of such statement in her examination-in-chief,
she clarified that it is implied that after taking her from
Page 31
Page 31 of 34
the said institute she was to be admitted to some other
institute. We find that the cross examination is not
sufficient to dislodge the testimony of Kulwinder Kaur,
PW 1 that Bakhshish Singh had an animosity of high
degree against her husband and herself which became
the motive for the murder in question. This inference
is fortified by the fact that Satbir Singh and Rachhpal
Singh did not appear to have any personal motive or
grudge for murdering -Gurcharan Singh, as observed
earlier. Satbir Singh, admittedly was the nephew of
Bakhshish Singh.
34. It is also significant that Bakhshish Singh had
ensured his absence from Mohali on the material day
and even from India by going to Pakistan on
14.06.2003 and returned only on 22.06.2003 and in
the meanwhile Satbir Singh and Rachhpal Singh
stayed at various places near the scene of the crime in
preparation of plan. In this regard, we find no reason
to interfere with the findings of the High Court that the
motive of Bakhshish Singh is established to eliminate
Gurcharan Singh from the declarations that he would
rape Guneet Kaur, daughter of the deceased, who was
Page 32
studying in the said institute and that he would gain
control of the Institute in which huge finances were
involved. It is not possible to determine the exact
cause of the motive, or the exact factor which impelled
the motive. When a high degree of animosity is
established the existence of the motive may be taken
to be established.
35. Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon
the Judgment of this Court in Sampath Kumar
(supra). According to the learned counsel, it is a
settled law as held in Santosh Kumar Singh v. State:
(2010) 9 SCC 747 and Rukia Begum v. State of
Karnataka: (2011) 4 SCC 779 approved in Sampath
Kumar (supra) that motive alone can hardly be a
ground for conviction and in absence of any other
circumstantial evidence, motive alone would not be
sufficient to convict an accused. Mr. H.S. Phoolka,
learned senior counsel appearing for Bakhshish Singh
submitted that at the most the prosecution has placed
on record the alleged motive of Bakhshish Singh by
pointing out his animosity against Gurcharan Singh.
That is, however, not sufficient to bring home the guilt
Page 33
Page 33 of 34
of crime of murder against him. It is not possible to
accept this contention since this is not a case where
what is established is only the motive without any
circumstantial evidence as in the cases referred to
above. What has been brought on record is the motive
of Bakhshish Singh along with other circumstantial
evidence referred to above, which in our view is
sufficient to convict the appellants. As observed
earlier, the evidence does not demonstrate instances of
any personal motive borne by Satbir Singh and
Rachhpal Singh against the deceased Gurcharan Singh
and the only reason why they killed Gurcharan Singh is
that Bakhshish Singh master minded the murder.
36. On reading the evidence of the Kulwinder Kaur,
PW 1 and other prosecution witnesses we find the
same to be convincing, reliable and trustworthy. We
find no reason to disbelieve the aforesaid statements
and consequently, we find no merit in these appeals,
which are dismissed accordingly.
37. Bakhshish Singh, appellant in Criminal Appeal No.
1110 of 2009 is on bail. His bail bonds stand
cancelled. Bakhshish Singh is directed to surrender
before the learned Sessions Judge, Rupnagar (Punjab)
Page 34
to undergo the remaining period of sentence. If he
does not surrender, the Trial Court is directed to take
appropriate action in the matter in accordance with
law.
..................………………..J. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN]
............………………………J. [S.A. Bobde]
New Delhi, August 06, 2013